hankinson - location branding - a study of the branding practices of 12 english cities

marketing activity has given rise to anincreasing interest in the potentialcontribution of branding to businessdevelopment in sectors outside market-ing’s traditional homeland of productand service marketing.10–11 There isevidence in the press that branding asa concept is increasingly being appliednot only to countries, such as Scotland,Spain and New Zealand, but also tocities such as New York, London,Manchester and Glasgow, as well asregions — for example, Shakespeare’sCounty (Warwickshire) and HerriotCountry (the Yorkshire Dales). Thegeographical areas to which branding isbeing applied thus vary considerably insize. The product itself can also becomplex and consist of several loca-

INTRODUCTIONBranding and brand management canbe said to have been one of the lead-ing areas of focus for both marketingacademics and practitioners during thefinal two decades of the 20th century.The period witnessed the publicationof several key texts.1–5 There has alsobeen a proliferation of articles, re-search papers and conference papersdefining and dissecting brands and ex-amining branding from a variety ofbusiness perspectives, including theirfinancial implications,6–7 their organisa-tional implications8 and their globalimportance, particularly as e-commercebecomes established.9

This enhanced awareness of theimportance of branding as a strategic

� HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 9, NO. 2, 127–142 NOVEMBER 2001 127

Graham HankinsonThe Business School, Universityof North London, StapletonHouse, 277–281 Holloway Road,London N7 8HN, UK

Tel: �44 (0)20 7753 7049;Fax: �44 (0)20 7753 5051;E-mail: [email protected]

Location branding: A study of thebranding practices of 12English citiesReceived (in revised form): 12th July, 2001

GRAHAM HANKINSONteaches and researches in the Business School at the University of North London. His research has focused onthe people and organisational aspects of branding both in the commercial sector and more recently in the publicsector, where he is currently researching the role and effectiveness of the public sector and other stakeholdersin the branding of locations.

AbstractThe practice of branding geographic locations such as countries, regions, cities and towns isincreasing, yet there is a paucity of published research on the topic. The literature, such as it is,suggests that branding in such cases is at best complex and at worst impossible. This paper reportson a qualitative study of 12 ‘cities’ in the UK which sought to explore the role which brandingplays in the marketing of these locations. The study purposefully excluded large cities such asLondon, Manchester and Glasgow, which have received extensive media attention. The resultssuggest that branding as a concept was seen as relevant but not always understood or appliedeffectively. The study provides insights into the key factors which affect the development of locationsas brands. The four factors identified as being of particular significance were organisationalcomplexity and control, the management of partnerships, product complexity and the measurementof success. The study concludes, nevertheless, that the branding of locations is not impossible andrecommends an agenda for future research to address the key factors identified.

PositioningAuthors such as Ries and Trout17 intro-duced the notion of positioning a brandin the consumer’s mind in order todistinguish the brand from the competi-tion. This requires a holistic approachwhich focuses the whole marketing mixon the effective communication of theuniqueness of the brand and making it‘the number one brand’ to an identifi-able market segment.

Added valueThis approach is based upon the no-tion of a brand as ‘an identifiableproduct, service, person or place, aug-mented in such a way that the buyer oruser perceives relevant unique addedvalues which match their needs mostclosely’.18 In particular, this approachexpands the idea of branding to includepeople and places, as well as underlin-ing the importance of perceived valuein what the brand has to offer, valuewhich is represented in the uniquerelevance of the offer to the needs ofthe consumer.

Brand imageThe building of an image is frequentlyregarded as the main purpose of brand-ing. In this approach, it is the symbolicaspects of the brand that come to thefore. To be successful, the brand’s imagemust be based on a clear understandingof the ‘feelings, ideas and attitudes’19 ofthe target consumer and ‘the effort todifferentiate the brand is psychologi-cally rather than physically based’.20

PersonalitySince the 1980s, the concept of imagehas tended to be replaced by the

tions (such as a collection of famoussites) forming a conceptual entity ratherthan a single place.12 The propositionmay also be based upon historicalevents rather than current realities.13

For these reasons, this paper refers tothese activities as location branding. Itis argued, as will be clear from theliterature review below, that creatingbrands in the way in which they aredefined and discussed in the literatureis a more difficult and complexprocess with regard to locations than isthe case with what might be calledmore mainstream products and serv-ices. Indeed, some authors maintainthat it is virtually impossible to developa destination as a brand.14

BRAND DEFINITIONSThere is no one accepted definitionof a brand. A categorisation of thevarious definitions used, both now andin the past, has been produced byHankinson and Cowking.15 A briefdescription of each category is sum-marised below.

Visual/verbal triggersThis approach focuses on the name,logo or strapline as something quitedistinctive from the product or serviceitself, and is based upon the obser-vation that well-known brands liveon through their name long after theoriginal products have died. Similarly,some brands are instantly recognisableby their packaging, such as Silk Cutcigarettes. Others are instantly recog-nised by their symbol, such as Mer-cedes. For these reasons, writers such asAaker,16 emphasise the importance ofthe name and visual presentation astriggers to the brand quality.

128 � HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 9, NO. 2, 127–142 NOVEMBER 2001

HANKINSON

marketing activities reflected the ap-proaches summarised above. Thus, forthe purposes of this research, no at-tempt has been made to formulate aworking definition of a brand.

PERSPECTIVES ON LOCATIONBRANDINGA review of the literature reveals abroad range of academic interest withregard to locations such as countries,cities, towns and regions as the focus ofmarketing activity. As might be ex-pected, each perspective delineates itsown domain and set of constructs,sometimes using different words todescribe the same ideas. In contrast tothe marketing of locations, there arerelatively few articles to be found inthe academic literature with regard tothe promotion of locations as brands.This is in contrast to the increasingevidence in the press that branding, atleast as a concept, is increasingly beingapplied to locations.

There are broadly three areas whichare of relevance to this area ofstudy: urban planning, retail marketingand tourism/vacation marketing. Therelevant literature from these areas issummarised below.

The urban planning perspectivePlace marketing features prominentlyin the literature of urban developmentand regional planning. The emphasishere is upon the ‘efficient social andeconomic functioning of the area con-cerned in accordance with whatevergoals have been established’.23,24 Therole of marketing is confined largely toselling rather than to the role en-capsulated in the marketing concept.Nevertheless, although not explicit, the

concept of brand personality. The brandpersonality has been described as ‘aunique combination of functional at-tributes and symbolic values with whichthe target consumer identifies’.21 Thepersonality of Coke, for example, hasbeen carefully built to represent youth,internationality and fun as well as beinga refreshing drink — a personalitywhich appeals to a large, identifiableglobal market segment with similarneeds and lifestyles, transcending dif-ferent cultures and income groups.

Perceptual appeal approachesOther approaches to brands developthis further, distinguishing additionalcomponents of a brand, each addingsomething to the brand’s appeal. Doyleet al.,22 as long ago as 1974, suggestedthat ‘there are three sorts of appeal; theyare all interrelated and each brand has adifferent blend of the three — anappeal to the senses, an appeal toreason and an appeal to the emotion’.This disaggregated approach allows amore precise examination of a brand’sanatomy and suggests that if the con-stituent parts of a brand’s appeal can beidentified, then it may be possible tobuild a brand which more closely meetsthe needs of the target consumer.

A WORKING DEFINITION OF A BRANDEach of the above approaches addssomething to the concept of a brand.Together they represent a rich varietyof ways in which brands can be repre-sented. The intention in this study,however, was not to test respondentsagainst a standard or benchmark defini-tion. The objective was rather to ex-plore how far the working definitionsused by respondents to guide their


LOCATION BRANDING: A STUDY OF THE BRANDING PRACTICES OF 12 ENGLISH CITIES

ments might be referred to as productdifferentiation and market segmenta-tion. Any location can be divided intoa set of spaces, each offering a differentproduct or service to a defined targetmarket. Thus, for example, a large citymay have a theatre district, leisurecomplexes and shopping malls/centres,each representing a cluster of productor service brands.

The retail marketing perspectiveThe multi-product nature of locationssuch as cities provides a link to areas ofacademic study which focus on the useof individual product spaces within thecity, the most significant of which areretailing and tourism. These are fre-quently commercial activities and assuch have their own commercial ob-jectives. Each organisation markets andbrands itself separately and, in so doing,potentially adds to the overall brandimage and economic prosperity of thelocation.

Thus, the centrality of retailing tothe economic prosperity of a locationforms part of the urban planningliterature, but consideration of themarketing and branding issues is moredeveloped, as might be expected, inthe retail marketing literature. Theshopping mall and city centre are seenas brands with ‘symbolic value and apersonality’28 which can be developedand maintained.29 The literature in thisarea draws heavily upon concepts fromservices marketing. Thus, the cityshopping centre can be represented asa ‘bundle of benefits’.30 It can alsobe represented by the Servunctionmodel.31 This model represents anorganisation as providing a set ofservices which have both visible ele-ments (the built environment in which

importance of branding is acknow-ledged in the urban planning literaturethrough the clear recognition of theneed for a strategy to ‘communicateand promote an image or environmen-tal meaning’.25

These authors draw attention tosome distinctive elements of placemarketing, such as:

— the predominantly public sectorresponsibility for the marketing;

— the multifaceted nature of thegeographical area;

— the fit (or lack of it) between thegeographic area and the boundariesof the jurisdictional agencies;

— the difficulty in defining theproduct;

— the fact that marketing may seek toachieve both political and socialaims as well as economic goals.

Other authors, such as Fines,26 drawattention to the similarities betweennot-for-profit marketing and themarketing of places:

— the absence of a direct financial linkbetween producer and consumer;

— the fact that trading does not trans-fer property rights.

The character of the transaction is thusdifferent in several respects from thetransaction associated with the purchaseof goods and services, which has im-plications for the effective measure-ment of performance.

To the urban planner, the productcan be categorised by spatial levels,from regions to towns to buildings,each with a different spatial pur-pose intended to meet the needsof a different consumer group.27 Inmainstream marketing terms these ele-


HANKINSON

the transport infrastructure may damagethe environment and hence the tourismproduct, both natural and cultural, if itis not associated with a visitor manage-ment policy. Frequently, however, suchdecisions lie outside the control ofa single authority, a situation whichresults from another distinctive aspect oflocation marketing: the fragmented na-ture of the decision-making process.34

The issue of control is one of thecentral distinguishing features of loca-tion marketing. Not only does this ariseout of the nature of the decision-making processes, but also from factorssuch as the absence of control over thevisitor experience. This applies both tothe visitor’s actual experience of thedestination itself as well as the jour-ney to the destination.35 Furthermore,the destination marketing organisation(DMO) is frequently cast in the role ofbroker between the producers (in-dividual service providers) and theconsumers, with no line authority.36

The DMO may also be required to actin the role of steward, working inpartnership with other stakeholders inorder to manage the destination in aholistic way and ensure the long-term future of the overall destinationproduct.37 Responsibility for the actualservices experienced may often lie withprivate sector providers (hotels, leisurefacilities, shopping centres etc).

Thus, key elements of the market-ing mix such as product and priceare controlled by different organisa-tions.38–39 Consequently, the focus ofthe DMO’s marketing strategy is of-ten on communications by default.Nevertheless, this is an importantactivity, underlined by the fact that thepotential tourist or holiday customercan rarely inspect the purchase priorto consumption.40 However, there

the service experience occurs and‘contact personnel’ who interact withthe visitors to the centre) and invisibleelements (the support infrastructure, forexample, services such as toilets, carparks, catering and transport). Thethird element of this model is ‘otherconsumers’ with whom the originalconsumer interacts. In the context ofthe shopping centre, these could beother local people, employees, tourists,suppliers etc using the same locationor space for a different purpose orproduct. This particular element isa potential source of conflict be-tween the urban planner, focusing onmanufacturing and producer facilities,and the marketer, focusing on cultivat-ing consumer services.32

The distinguishing features of loca-tion marketing identifiable from thisarea of study are:

— the potential for the same locationto be used or ‘sold’ for more thanone purpose;

— the potential conflict in objectivesbetween different stakeholders.

The tourism/vacation marketingperspectiveTo the tourism marketer the loca-tion is a destination, a place whichpeople (and organisations) visit. Assuch, tourism is a distinctive aspect ofthe economic development of a loca-tion. The literature in this area alsoemphasises the importance of establish-ing a balance between competing ob-jectives, particularly the need to strikea careful balance between economicdevelopment and environmental objec-tives relevant to the tourist.33 Forexample, improving access to the des-tination through the development of



comparable in terms of size andprominence with the majority of citiesin the UK and may therefore havedistorted the results. The first step inthe research was to determine howbranding was defined in the contextof location marketing, and specificallyto see how closely this definitioncompared to the definitions to befound in the literature. Secondly,the research sought to determinethe extent to which branding con-cepts such as positioning, personalityand brand proposition could beoperationalised, and the factors whicheither helped or hindered this. Thirdly,the research tried to identify if andhow the effectiveness of the brandingstrategies was measured.

Research objectivesThe objectives of this research projectwere to investigate the extent to whichthose responsible for the marketing oflocations:

— understood branding in the contextof their marketing objectives;

— applied branding concepts;— perceived issues which affected the

development of successful locationbrands;

— addressed these issues;— measured the effectiveness of their

branding strategies.

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGYThe study was exploratory in natureand intended to develop an under-standing of an area which has so farreceived minimal attention in theliterature. It was therefore appropriateto use an interpretive, qualita-tive methodology, using in-depth

is always a danger that the visitorexperience will differ from the ex-pectations generated by those com-munications, particularly when thequality of the experience depends uponthe inputs of a wide variety ofservice providers, many of whomdo not necessarily regard visitors astheir target market. In such cir-cumstances, branding, to be suc-cessful, requires consistency betweenthe ‘induced’ image-building processescreated by promotional bodies such astour operators and local authorities andthe ‘organic’ processes as portrayed bythe mass media. In other words, thedestination brand like any other mustdeliver the promise. This becomesparticularly crucial when a destinationhas suffered from negative publicity (egFlorida).41 Furthermore, this may alsobe difficult to achieve given the locusof responsibility for this activity withinthe public sector, characterised bylimited budgets which ‘compromisethe creative process of marketing andadvertising’.42

Despite these constraints, it is per-haps in the area of tourism/vacationmarketing that the understanding ofbranding is most developed. Neverthe-less, the question as to whether brand-ing can truly be applied to locations hasonly received limited attention in theliterature.43–44

THIS STUDYThis research sought to ascertain therole which branding plays in themarketing of city/town locations inthe UK. The study purposefullyexcluded the large cities such asManchester and London which havereceived extensive media coverage, asit was felt that these would not be


HANKINSON

switchboard of each ‘city’ authority.Thus, initial selection relied upon theknowledge of the telephonist. In manycases this led to interviews withpersonnel whose predominant respon-sibility was tourism, a bias that needs tobe taken into account when examiningthe research results. The sample didinclude some personnel responsible foreconomic development, but only inone case were researchers directed tosomeone with responsibility forbranding across all city marketingactivities (Hull). This issue is discussedmore fully in the results. Table 2 showsthe roles of the respondentsinterviewed.

In two cases (Grimsby and Nor-

interviews.45 It was anticipated that theinductive process would provide aricher data set than a quantitativeapproach at this stage. The interviewswere conducted with key market-ing personnel from 12 Englishcities/towns. In order to ensure abroad-based sample, respondents werechosen to represent six different typesof location: a historical centre, a newtown, a commercial centre, a seasideresort, an agricultural centre and aseaport. Each type of centre isrepresented by two cities. The samplewas therefore a purposive one. Thecities selected are set out in Table 1.

The respondents were iden-tified through the main telephone


Table 1 Sampled cities by category

Category Cities*

HistoricResortIndustrial/commercialSeaportNew townRural

York, LincolnSkegness, ScarboroughSheffield, LeedsHull, GrimsbyStevenage, Milton KeynesIpswich, Norwich

*The term ‘city’ is used loosely here. The sample includes several large towns.

Table 2 Roles of respondents

City Role of respondent

YorkLincolnSkegnessScarboroughSheffieldLeedsHullGrimsbySkegnessStevenageMilton KeynesIpswichNorwich

Assistant chief executive, marketing and corporate affairsTourism managerHead of leisure and tourismHead of marketing and developmentManaging director, Destination SheffieldTourism development managerMarketing directorDeputy director of economic and community developmentEast Lincolnshire CouncilMedia and campaigns officerMarketing and communications managerTourism and marketing officerTourism officer for Norfolk


hour. They were tape recorded andthen transcribed before a contentanalysis was carried out. This wascarried out manually in view ofthe limited number of interviewsconducted. The process was under-taken independently by two separateresearchers46 and a comparison of theresults was made. Common themeswere noted and links with the estab-lished body of knowledge reviewedearlier were made.

RESULTS

Defining the placeIn most cases the geographic area/spacewas described in terms ofadministrative/legally defined bound-aries. In some cases these includedouter suburbs and rural areas and inothers they were tightly drawn aroundthe urban area. There were clearlyoverlaps in responsibility for marketingpurposes, the most obvious being whatmight be described as the ‘Russian doll’syndrome where the city formed asubset or second-tier authority of alarger region such as a tourist board. Asone respondent put it:

‘We have different boundaries depending onthe audience, it is fair to say. We have verymuch a defined legal boundary, the localauthority. That is our prime audience, thepeople that live within it. For externalmarketing purposes in terms of economicdevelopment or tourism, then the boundarybecomes a little more flexible or evenblurred. To some extent we as a councilwork in partnership with a range of differentorganisations . . . so we have the TourismBureau of which we are a member. Theirmembership will extend 20 miles awayfrom the centre and well outside the localauthority.’

wich) interviews were carried out withmanagers working at district or countycouncil level. These have been in-cluded in the analysis even thoughtheir remit extended beyond the citysampled. The issues raised did notdiffer systematically from those dis-cussed with those responsible for themarketing of cities.

THE INTERVIEWSInterviews took place during April andMay 2000 and followed the formatof an in-depth interview. The inter-view guide used to steer the interviewprocess is set out in the Appendix. Thefirst two questions were asked in or-der to provide the context in whichthe marketing of the city took place.They provided information on, first,the extent to which marketing of thecity was also the responsibility of otherpersonnel within the organisation and,secondly, the geographic area coveredfor marketing purposes. In the resultsthis is referred to as ‘Defining the place’.The next two questions explored therespondents’ understanding of brandingand the way in which it could (or couldnot) be operationalised in the marketingof the location. The extent to whichthe application of branding was seen asbeing different from its application toproducts and services was also explored.Questions 6 and 7 explored if andhow branding was used in reality, andthe factors which helped and hinderedthis. Finally, questions were asked abouthow success was measured, if at all, andthe use of performance indicators in thisregard.

Each interview was conducted with-out interruption from the interviewersexcept for clarification and probing.Normally interviews took about one


HANKINSON

Defining brandingDespite attempts to address the issue,none of the respondents claimed tohave developed their location as abrand effectively. However, exampleswere given of how specific techniquesof branding were being applied. Thesefrequently focused on what might becalled the visual triggers, such asmarques, logos, straplines/slogans andnames. At one end of the spectrum,these were seen as a means of buildingrecognition through consistency incommunications. In such cases, thebrand was seen as an umbrella deviceto unify a wide variety of productofferings under a common identity.Thus, in answer to the question ‘Howdo you define branding in the contextof what you do?’ a typical respondentreplied: ‘I see it [a brand] as giving thetourism industry a label to market thearea . . . So it is instantly recognisable,the location is instantly identifiableboth internally and externally . . . Whatwe are trying to do externally is raisethe awareness of what the area has tooffer.’ This policy is in contrast to citiesdiscussed above which saw such ap-proaches as diluting or overstretch-ing the brand proposition. Beyondthis, respondents often demonstrated adeeper understanding of what effectivebranding entailed. There was recogni-tion that a brand needs to reflect notonly the physical/tangible experienceof the location, but also the intangible/value-based attributes. To quote onerespondent: ‘It [the brand] is more thanjust a physical thing . . . it needs toevoke some sort of emotional reaction.’Such views were consistent with the‘perceptual appeal’49 and ‘brand image’approaches50,51 summarised above.

There was also recognition of theneed to offer and, in particular,

This type of ‘administrative overlap’was sometimes seen as having a nega-tive impact and resulted in conflictingor uncoordinated marketing strategiesand political rivalry. To quote anotherrespondent, ‘[We have] a special role asa city in the region which is notaltogether popular with X and Y cities.’In other cases, potential overlaps wereexploited through the formation ofalliances as part of a planned marketingapproach, such as the creation of cross-boundary brands, eg Yorkshire Coast,and combined tourism and investmentstrategies. In these circumstances, theoverlaps were the result of strategicalliances between locations intended toproduce a positive impact. In otherinstances the strategic alliances wereformed between similar types of city,such as cathedral cities, to form ajoint promotional platform. Such al-liances represented attempts to define aspecific location as a product, whichmade more sense from a marketingperspective than passively accepting alegally defined location which bore noresemblance to what might be re-quired for effective marketing. How-ever, broad alliances were not alwaysregarded as beneficial. To quote oneexample: ‘Working in a city has anadvantage over say a county and cer-tainly a regional tourist board, in thatthe product diversity is so large that inthe majority of cases . . . you are notdealing with cohesive brands.’

Thus, the inappropriateness of legalboundaries and the difficulties ofdefining the place as a meaningfulproduct, identified in the urbanplanning literature,47,48 were recognisedand seen as important. In addition,there was clear evidence that somecities were actively addressing thisproblem.



phasis on getting people together behind theidea.’

Another respondent said:

‘There are an awful lot of players and we areall marketing the city . . . big organisa-tions with a citywide focus, the universities,business organisations, individual businesseslike hotels, tourist attractions . . . There isnobody with a grip on marketing.’

These views are consistent with thesignificant emphasis in the literature onthe problems of managerial controlwhich characterise the decision-makingprocesses associated with many aspectsof location branding.52–57 City councilswere also seen as being motivatedby political objectives rather than theprofit objectives which are central tothe branding of products and serv-ices in the commercial sector. As onerespondent put it, ‘We don’t makedecisions for purely marketing reasonswhich any private enterprise would do.’Such views further confirm the issuesraised in the literature.58

The role of branding in citiesAs a result, the role of branding inlocal authorities was, in reality, a fairlylimited one and frequently not distin-guishable from overall marketing com-munication activities. Its primary roleseemed to be associated with buildingawareness by maximising the adoptionof a logo, strapline, symbol or icon.Thus, in describing the role of brand-ing, respondents used phrases like ‘raiseawareness’, ‘an easy encapsulation of allthe attributes’, ‘consistency’ and ‘iden-tity’. As discussed earlier, branding wasusually undertaken in partnership withother stakeholders such as local hoteland tourist associations and other key

deliver distinctiveness. For example,one respondent said: ‘A brand canonly work . . . if it is backed upby a demonstration that the valuesit is trying to convey are actuallybeing delivered.’ However, overall ithas to be said that the researchfound considerable variation in theextent of branding practices. In somecases, semi-autonomous organisationshad been set up to take the locationbrand forward, embracing both inwardinvestment and tourism objectives.In other cases, the responsibility forbranding was assumed by very smalldepartments in the local authority withresponsibility for tourism only.

Comparisons with product/servicebrandingWhen compared to mainstream brand-ing, the most frequent comparator wasthe resources available to do the job,which were extremely limited incontrast to the private sector andan issue which was often raised inresponse to other questions. The ap-proach to branding was seen as dif-ferent in several respects. Brandingcities relied for success upon achievingconsensus with partners, in contrast tocommercial organisations, which wereseen as having control structures andhierarchies which enabled branding tobe managed more tightly. One respon-dent expressed it as follows:

‘If you are dealing with a product, theproduct is within a corporate scenario. In acorporate scenario you have control, thereare structures, there is hierarchy, there arelevels of expectation that there are not in acity. Nobody has to do anything because thecity doesn’t belong to anybody, the citybelongs to everybody. There is greater em-


HANKINSON

described as ‘organisational fragmen-tation’ both within the city ad-ministration and externally. Internally,it was not unusual for there tobe separate brand strategies emanat-ing from tourism departments andeconomic development departments.Even when tourism departments werepart of a larger economic developmentdepartment there was little coordina-tion as regards branding. In some cases,branding was also seen as a means ofpromoting the activities and policies ofthe elected members of the council andwas the responsibility of the publicrelations office. As a result, depart-ments often used different symbols andstraplines to communicate potentiallyconflicting brand propositions. Theseissues were summarised by one respon-dent as follows: ‘We have differentstrengths we want to draw out aboutthe city . . . we have one [brand] forinward investment and another fortourism and then the council itselfneeds to visit its own branding I think.’Such views provide evidence of thepotential complexities of product dif-ferentiation and market segmentationas they relate to the marketing oflocations60 which can seriously inhibitthe strategic development of a locationas a brand. Externally, the fragmenta-tion manifested itself in the frequentlyloose alliances of partners from boththe private and public sectors who eachhad their own branding objectives butwhose collective support was alsoessential to successful location brand-ing. The necessity to obtain consensuswas frequently referred to as a factorhindering the development of a suc-cessful branding strategy. The tendencyfor political motives to predominateover financial objectives as far asmarketing was concerned was also seen

sites in the city such as shopping cen-tres. Many respondents saw a majorpart of their role as coordinating thesevarious stakeholders through partner-ships and consortia and encouragingthem to use the city’s logo or straplineeither as a form of endorsement or asan umbrella symbol. One respondentexpressed this as follows:

‘What we have done here over the last fouryears since I joined is we have formed anEnvironment, Tourism and Managementpartnership. It is a collection of just over 30organisations that covers the whole of thetourism industry . . . so it is local authorities,districts and councils. There are someprivate sector organisations . . . and alsoattractions organisations and accommodation. . . In the early days one of the things weneeded to do was to unite the [tourism]industry . . . under a common banner.’

This practice exemplifies the areas ofoverlap between the domains of urbanplanning, retail marketing and tourismmarketing identified in the literaturereview, and highlights the potential forcollaborative research.

Factors affecting successNot surprisingly, successful brandingwas thought to be more likely whenthere was unity of purpose and com-mitment by all stakeholders to acommon branding strategy. Success,however, was impeded by low budgetsin the public sector, something whichall 12 respondents referred to andwhich one would have expected fromthe review of the literature.59 Further-more, low budgets reflect the fact that,in the UK, tourism is a non-statutoryfunction of local government and istherefore vulnerable to budget cuts. Itwas also hindered by what might be



‘promote the city as a business destina-tion’.

Assessing successAs discussed in the literature review,the absence of a direct financial linkbetween the producer and the con-sumer would lead one to expect arelatively low incidence of the use ofperformance indicators on practicalgrounds,61 and indeed there was onlylimited reference to the role of brand-ing in meeting more measurable objec-tives such as income targets andincreased activity levels (hotel oc-cupancy, visitors, enquiries etc). Thecollection of data relating to brandingwas more frequently associated withmarket research prior to the formula-tion of a strategy than with theconstruction of performance indicatorsto measure the success of the strategy.However, it would be wrong toassume that the relative complexitiesof performance measurement in thisarea acted as an inhibitor. The useof performance indicators was seenas becoming increasingly important,partly as a result of the ‘best value’programme initiated by central govern-ment as a means of achieving efficiencygains in the public sector. There wasalso evidence of the increasing use ofinternally sponsored performance in-dicators to measure activity levels suchas income generated, visitor flows,bed nights, journalist visits and en-quiry levels. Where performance in-dicators were used, however, theywere linked to overall marketingperformance rather than specifically tobranding activities or measures of brandequity. Most respondents attributed theminimal use of performance indicatorsto limited resources rather than the

as an obstacle. The need for consensusbetween all stakeholders was illustratedby one respondent, who in response tothe question ‘What hinders branding?’replied as follows:

‘Budget. You can do anything with money. . . but because we all work in partnership,all the partners need to agree it. That isfurther complicated by the fact that some ofthe partners are local authorities, and it isnot only officers, you need the politicians toagree. The need for consensus can slowthings down.’

How far did respondents address theseissues? Answers to this question variedconsiderably. At one end of thespectrum, cities had established semi-autonomous organisations dedicated tomarketing and branding. However,only one city had a separate organisa-tion dedicated to creating a city brand.Such organisations were seen as beingrelatively free from political inter-ference and able to organise themselvesmore effectively for marketing pur-poses. These tended to be a feature ofthe larger cities in the sample. As thehead of one such dedicated organisa-tion said:

‘We have what is called a strategy groupwhich includes the leader of the council, theCEO of a major local multinational and adirector from a well-known corporate iden-tity agency. That group makes the decisions. . . There is also an operations group ofabout 25 people, some are public sector,some are private sector, who are leadingvarious projects that are part of the brandingprocess.’

Other dedicated organisations had beenset up specifically to look at inwardinvestment and were expected to‘bring business to the city’ as well as


HANKINSON

worst, some would say, impossible.Given the paucity of research in thisarea, this study sought to explore therole which branding plays or couldplay in the marketing of locations suchas towns and cities in the UK and tocompare the findings with the issuesdiscussed in the literature. In consider-ing the results, it should be borne inmind that the research purposefullyexcluded the largest cities in the UK.It might also be said to have a biastowards the tourism aspects of locationbranding.

As regards the literature, evidencewas found to support many of theissues. The study found that mostdepartments had a limited appreciationof what a brand is. Branding as aconcept was seen as relevant but notalways fully understood, and this has tobe borne in mind when consider-ing the results. In particular, brandingtechniques were often limited to thedevelopment of logos, straplines andsymbols which were used both to createa visual identity and as an umbrella fora wide variety of frequently commercialactivities, such as hospitality and leisure,as part of the product on offer at thelocation. This limited promotion of thebrand to some extent reflected thesmall budgets allocated to marketingand branding activities and a lack ofpolitical will. The more progressivecities attempted to create a customer-focused product by either integratingrelevant features of the city or formingstakeholder alliances, sometimes acrossgeographic boundaries, in order todevelop a coherent product as the basisfor a multi-product brand. In contrast,the study found that the less progres-sive cities accepted the legal defini-tions of their boundaries and tooka product rather than a consumer-

practical difficulties which the literaturesuggests. One respondent summarisedthe position as follows: ‘When wedon’t have big budgets, or hardly anybudget to be honest, we would ratherspend £3–4k on actual marketing thanthe measuring of success.’ There ap-pears to be a certain degree ofcircularity here. It could be argued thatthe need to introduce some form ofperformance assessment is proportionalto the size of the budget or, putanother way, to be able to argue for alarger budget requires evidence that itwill generate an acceptable rate ofreturn. Having said that, it is notunusual even in the private sector tofind insufficiently defined criteria onwhich to assess the success of a brand.Indeed, in contrast to measures ofmarketing, there are no definitivecriteria against which to measure brandsuccess.62 This is an area which wouldbenefit from research, not only inrelation to public sector marketing ingeneral but more importantly in rela-tion to location branding, where theability to develop brand equity needsto be demonstrated before budgets willbe forthcoming.

CONCLUSIONSThe branding of locations has attractedrelatively little interest in the academicliterature. What literature there is tendsto focus on the broader marketingissues. This literature is mainly tobe found in the domains of ur-ban planning, retail marketing andtourism/vacation marketing. From theliterature reviewed, it is clear fromseveral different academic perspectivesthat the application of branding tolocations such as cities and towns isregarded as at best complex and at



particularly those in the private sector.These stakeholders exert considerableinfluence on the shaping of thelocation brand, which can be bothpositive and mutually beneficial if theright form of partnership can be found,or counterproductive without a highlevel of consensus.

The third factor is product com-plexity. Critical to successful brandingis the ability to define the boundariesof the location such that it forms aproduct or service which is perceivedas attractive by the target market(s),and is able to deliver on the promise.In most cases this can only be achievedthrough the establishment of the rightpartnerships.

The fourth factor is the measure-ment of success. As in mainstreammarketing, there is a clear need in citiesto be able to demonstrate that loca-tion branding is an effective strategy.At present little money is availableto develop location brands, but it isargued that until there is evidence todemonstrate that brand equity can becreated in location brands then thisposition is unlikely to change.

Given that there has so far been littlepublished research into the whole areaof location branding, and in particularthese key factors, it is suggested that afuture research agenda across all threesubject areas might profitably addressthese factors. In particular, researchshould seek to understand the relation-ship between organisational structure,control and branding practices in localauthorities; seek to advance currentunderstanding of the relationships be-tween stakeholders involved in thebranding of locations by exploringthese relationships and identifying goodpractice; compare the effectiveness ofdifferent product strategies in the

focused approach. In these instances,branding activities were often centredaround events management and build-ing loose links with local hotel associa-tions and attractions. The inability toestablish effective stakeholder alliancesmeant that branding strategies werefrequently the result of a bargainingprocess that led to the establishment ofan umbrella organisation based aroundthe lowest common denominator inorder to encapsulate the objectives ofthe majority.

Overall, however, the study foundno evidence to suggest that the brand-ing of locations is impossible. Thevalue of this study lies in the insightswhich it gives into the key factorswhich affect the brand’s development.

The first factor is organisationalcomplexity and control. If branding isto become an effective tool in thepromotion of a location, the researchsuggests that changes will have to bemade in the way in which theorganisations responsible for brandingare organised. The absence of ap-propriate organisational structures oftenresulted in conflicting objectives beingset for different promotional activities.This undermines a central requirementof successful branding, which is consis-tency in what the brand represents. Asingle, consistent and clearly identifiedbrand proposition and set of brandobjectives must form the basis of thelocation brand’s strategic developmentand performance evaluation. This canonly be achieved through the establish-ment of an appropriate organisationalstructure.

The second factor is themanagement of partnerships. Locationbrands cannot be developed by localauthorities without the effectivecommitment of other organisations,


HANKINSON

‘Tourism Marketing and ManagementHandbook’, Prentice-Hall International,Cambridge.

(15) Hankinson, G. A. and Cowking, P. (1995)‘What do you really mean by a brand?’,Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 3, No. 1,pp. 43–50.

(16) Aaker, ref. 1 above.(17) Ries, A. and Trout, J. (1986) ‘Positioning:

The Battle for Your Mind’, McGraw-Hill,Maidenhead.

(18) de Chernatony and McDonald, ref. 2above.

(19) Gardner, B. and Levy, S. (1955) ‘Theproduct and the brand’, Harvard BusinessReview, March/April, pp. 33–39.

(20) Frazer, C. (1983) ‘Creative Strategy: AManagement Perspective’, Journal ofAdvertising, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 36–41.

(21) Hankinson and Cowking, ref. 15 above.(22) Doyle. P., Law, P., Weinberg, C. and

Simmonds, K. (1974) ‘Analytical MarketingManagement’, Harper and Row, London.

(23) Ashworth, G. J. and Voogt, H. (1990)‘Selling the City’, Bellhaven, London.

(24) Ashworth, G. J. and Voogt, H. (1994)‘Marketing and place promotion’, in Gold,J. R. and Ward, S. V. (Eds) ‘PlacePromotion, the Use of Publicity andMarketing to Sell Towns and Regions’,John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

(25) Burgess, J. A. (1990) ‘The production andconsumption of environmental meanings inthe mass media — A research agenda forthe 1990s’, Transactions of the Institute ofBritish Geographers, Vol. 15, pp. 139–161.

(26) Fines, S. H. (1981) ‘The Marketing of Ideasand Social Issues’, Praeger, New York.

(27) Ashworth and Voogt, ref. 24 above.(28) Brown, S. (1992) ‘Retail Location: A

Micro-scale Perspective’, Avebury,Aldershot.

(29) Warnaby, G. and Davies, B. J. (1997)‘Commentary: Cities as service factories?Using the Servunction system for marketingcities as shopping destinations’, InternationalJournal of Retail & Distribution Management,Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 204–210.

(30) Bateson, J. E. G. (1992) ‘Managing ServicesMarketing’, 2nd edn, The Dryden Press,Fort Worth.

(31) Langeard, E., Bateson, J., Lovelock, C. andEigler, P. (1981) ‘Marketing of Services:New Insights From Consumers andManagers’, Report No. 81–104, MarketingSciences Institute, Cambridge, MA.

(32) Williams, C. C. (1996) ‘Rethinking the roleof retailer and consumer services in localeconomic development: A British

context of brand building; and map outthe criteria for brand success as thebasis for the evaluation of locationbrand equity.

AcknowledgmentThe author would like to thank Val Cox from theUniversity of Lincolnshire and Humberside, whojointly carried out the fieldwork and assisted withthe analysis for this study. She was also co-authorof the working paper presented to the Academyof Marketing conference at the University ofDerby in July 2000.

References(1) Aaker, D. (1991) ‘Managing Brand Equity’,

The Free Press, New York.(2) de Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M.

(1992) ‘Creating Powerful Brands’,Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

(3) Kapferer, J.-N. (1992) ‘Strategic BrandManagement: New Approaches to Creatingand Evaluating Brand Equity’, Kogan Page,London.

(4) Hankinson, G. A. and Cowking, P. (1993)‘Branding in Action’, McGraw-Hill,Maidenhead.

(5) Randall, G. (1997) ‘A Practical Guide toBranding’, Hutchinson, London.

(6) Murphy, J. (1989) ‘Brand Valuation: A Trueand Fair View’, Hutchinson, London.

(7) Barwise, P., Higson, C., Likierman, A. andMarsh, P. (1989) ‘Accounting for Brands’,London Business School for ICAEW.

(8) Hankinson, P. and Hankinson, G. A. (1998)‘The role of organisational structure insuccessful global brand management: A casestudy of the Pierre Smirnoff Company’,Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 6, No. 1,pp. 29–43.

(9) Hankinson, G. A. and Cowking, P. (1996)‘The Reality of Global Brands’,McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.

(10) Kotler, P., Haider, D. H. and Rein, I.(1993) ‘Marketing Places’, Free Press, NewYork.

(11) Pringle, H. (2001) ‘How Cause-relatedMarketing Builds Brands’, John Wiley &Sons, Chichester.

(12) Seaton, A. V. and Bennett, M. M. (1996)‘Marketing Tourism Products; Concepts,Issues, Cases’, Thompson Business Press,London.

(13) Seaton, A. V. (Ed) (1994) ‘Tourism: TheState of the Art’, John Wiley & Sons,Chichester.

(14) Witt, S. F. and Moutinho, L. (1995)



(51) Frazer, ref. 20 above.(52) Walker and Hanson, ref. 33 above.(53) Medlik and Middleton, ref. 35 above.(54) Pollock, ref. 36 above.(55) Huse and Eide, ref. 37 above.(56) Middleton, ref. 38 above.(57) Morgan and Pritchard, ref. 39 above.(58) Burgess, ref. 25 above.(59) Morgan and Pritchard, ref. 39 above.(60) Ashworth and Voogt, ref. 24 above.(61) Fines, ref. 26 above.(62) de Chernatony, L., Dall Almo Riley, F. and

Harris, F. (1998) ‘Criteria to assess brandsuccess’, Journal of Marketing Management,Vol. 14, pp. 765–781.

APPENDIX: INTERVIEW GUIDE1. Other than you, who are the other

people with marketing respon-sibilities in your area?

2. How do you define the boundaryof the town/city for marketing pur-poses?

3. What does the term ‘branding’mean to you? What’s the purpose ofbranding?

4. Do you think branding a city ortown is different from branding aproduct or service?

5. What role does branding play inyour marketing? If none, why isthis?

6. What are your branding objec-tives?

7. Who are your main audiences?8. What factors affect the success of

your branding?9. What helps and what hinders this?

10.How do you assess how successfulyou are?

11.Do you collect data on specificperformance indicators?

12.Other key areas.

perspective’, Journal of Retailing andConsumer Services, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 53–56.

(33) Walker, R. H. and Hanson, D. J. (1998)‘Green marketing and green places: Ataxonomy for the destination marketer’,Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14, pp.623–639.

(34) Ibid.(35) Medlik, S. and Middleton, V. T. C. (1973)

‘Product formulation in tourism’, Tourismand Marketing, Vol. 13.

(36) Pollock, A. (1995) ‘The impact ofinformation technology on destinationmarketing’, EIU Travel and Tourism Analyst,No. 3, pp. 66–83.

(37) Huse, M. and Eide, D. (1996) ‘Stakeholdermanagement and the avoidance of corporatecontrol’, Business and Society, Vol. 35, No.2, pp. 211–244.

(38) Middleton, V. T. C. (1994) ‘Marketing inTravel and Tourism’, Butterworth-Heinemann, Avon.

(39) Morgan, N. J. and Pritchard, A. (1999)‘Building destination brands: The cases ofWales and Australia’, Journal of BrandManagement, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 103–118.

(40) Brayshaw, D. (1995) ‘Negative publicityabout tourism destinations — A Florida casestudy’, EIU Travel and Tourism Analyst, No.5, pp. 62–71.

(41) Ibid.(42) Morgan and Pritchard, ref. 39 above.(43) Crockett, S. R. and Wood, L. J. (2000)

‘Brand Western Australia: A totallyintegrated approach’, Journal of VacationMarketing, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 276–289.

(44) Nickerson, N. P. and Moisey, R. N. (2000)‘Branding a state from features topositioning: Making it simple?’, Journal ofVacation Marketing, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.217–226.

(45) Goodyear, M. (1990) ‘Qualitativeresearch’, in Birn, R., Hague, P. andVangelder, P. (Eds) ‘A Handbook ofMarket Research Techniques’, KoganPage, London.

(46) Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994)‘Qualitative Data Analysis’, Sage, ThousandOaks.

(47) Ashworth and Voogt, ref. 23 above.(48) Ashworth and Voogt, ref. 24 above.(49) Doyle, et al. ref. 22 above.(50) Gardner and Levy, ref. 19 above.


HANKINSON

hankinson - location branding - a study of the branding practices of 12 english cities

Documents